28 February, 2018

Eva
Bartlett breaks down the dizzying array of information surrounding
the mounting humanitarian crisis in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta. With
accusations abound, parsing the reality on the ground is becoming
more challenging by the day.

by
Eva Bartlett

Part
1

On
February 20, from Amman, Jordan, UNICEF Regional Director for the
Middle East and North Africa, Geert Cappelaere, issued a statement of
“outrage” titled: “The war on children in Syria: Reports of
mass casualties among children in Eastern Ghouta and Damascus.”

The
“statement” — consisting of blank lines with the preface “No
words will do justice to the children killed, their mothers, their
fathers and their loved ones” — dovetails with corporate
media’s increasingly hysterical rhetoric on the Damascus suburb of
Ghouta, which has been plagued with chemical weapons attacks for over
four years, perpetrated by U.S.-backed proxies allied with the Nusra
Front attempting to frame the Syrian government with war crimes.

UNICEF
further wrote: “We no longer have the words to describe
children’s suffering and our outrage. Do those inflicting the
suffering still have words to justify their barbaric acts?”

Where
was UNICEF’s dramatic blank-lined protest when 200 civilians,
including 116 children, were slaughtered by terrorist factions while
in convoy from Kafraya and Foua in April 2017? These factions
included Ahrar al-Sham (supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia),
al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), and factions of the Free Syrian Army. The Free
Syrian Army was armed by the U.S. And, according to the words of
former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani,
Qatar — with the support and coordination of Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
and the U.S.—was from the beginning supporting armed groups, even
al-Qaeda, in Syria.

This
seemingly outraged UN statement has made the rounds in corporate
media reports on eastern Ghouta, most of which cite the U.K.-based
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), run from his home by a
sole person, Osama Suleiman, who uses the pseudonym Rami Abdul
Rahman. In its recent Ghouta reports, SOHR itself does not provide
sources.

On
February 22, in the UN Security Council, UN Emergency Relief
Coordinator and head of OCHA, Mark Lowcock, spoke for just over 10
minutes about eastern Ghouta and “400,000 people besieged.”

Not once
did he mention the designated terrorist factions within. These
terrorist factions include: Jaysh al-Islam (Saudi-backed), Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda), Ahrar al-Sham, and Faylaq al-Rahman (the
main faction in Jobar, and reported to have received BGM-71 TOW
anti-tank guided missiles).

The UN
would garner much less public support and outrage if, instead of
easily-misconstrued emotive statements, it showed training videos
like this one depicting then-leader Zahran Alloush’s Army of Islam
training in eastern Ghouta with their armored tanks. This is the
reality of eastern Ghouta. Jaysh al-Islam is the group infamous for
caging civilians, including women, to use as human shields.

The UN
would garner less support still were the UN and corporate media to
show videos of civilians like this woman cursing the armed groups,
blaming them for hunger and for hoarding food, telling them to leave
Ghouta.

With
hindsight, we know now that in other formerly-occupied areas of
Syria, like East Aleppo, Homs, Madaya, al-Waer, and elsewhere, when
finally resecured from terrorist factions, civilians in these areas
spoke of terrorists hoarding food and medicine, and preventing them
from leaving — holding them hostage as human shields.

It also
transpired that the numbers the UN and corporate media were citing
about eastern Aleppo’s population —250,000 to 300,000 – were
highly inflated, double the actual numbers of civilians in eastern
areas. As I wrote previously: “110,000 civilians registered at
the Jibreen Registration center; another estimated 10 percent might
have gone straight to stay with family instead; and according to the
Red Cross, 35,000 people (“fighters” and their family members)
were evacuated out of Aleppo. The total number was thus at most
150,000, most likely significantly lower.”

In his
February 22 address, only once did the UN’s Lowcock address
terrorists’ shelling of Damascus, saying: “shelling from
eastern Ghouta is reportedly killing and injuring scores of civilians
in Damascus City.”

Why
reportedly? Why did Lowcock not take and read the testimonies of
civilians as he claims to have done of civilians in eastern Ghouta?
Damascus is far more accessible than al-Qaeda-occupied Ghouta:
Lowcock could very easily travel to the Syrian capital and meet with
some of the many civilians affected by the years of constant
mortaring from terrorist factions in eastern Ghouta. Instead, he
seems to prefer to repeat testimonies collected from afar, solely
from and on Ghouta.

For
weeks, Jaysh al-Islam, al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, and Faylaq al-Rahman
have intensified their heavy-shelling of Damascus, intentionally
targeting heavily-populated civilian areas of the city, including
schools, homes, and crowded public spaces.

These
shellings are breaches of the de-escalation zones agreement of May
2017, co-signed by Russia, Turkey and Iran. Eastern Ghouta is one of
the four areas included in the agreement of cessation of hostilities.
According to the article “6th Astana Process Talks Produce
De-Escalation Zone Agreement”: “The guarantor countries noted
‘progress in the fight against terrorism and elimination of ISIL,
Jabhat al-Nusra and all other individuals, groups, enterprises and
organisations associated with Al-Qaida or ISIL as a result of the
functioning of these de-escalation zones’ and confirmed their
determination ‘to take all necessary measures to continue to fight
them both inside and outside de-escalation zones.’”

Jaysh
al-Islam — whose political leader, Mohammed Alloush, was supposed
to participate in the May and subsequent 2017 Astana peace talks —
is one of the factions attacking Damascus. The Syrian website
Muraselon reported that the February 23 bombing of Damascus, which
killed at least one civilian, was a powerful missile, likely fired by
Jaysh al-Islam. The article referred to the terrorist group’s own
social media bragging about possessing and intending to fire said
missile on Damascus. That deserves a little outrage and more than a
passing comment.

Following
the Security Council meeting, Syria’s permanent representative to
the UN, Ambassador Bashar al-Ja’afari, spoke to the press, noting
Mr. Lowcock’s lack of objectivity in his Security Council
statement. Ambassador al-Ja’afari said: “We have an official
letter from the Resident Coordinator in Damascus, the chair of OCHA
in Syria, saying that during 2017, OCHA — with the cooperation of
the Syrian government, and Syrian Red Crescent, and International
Committee of the Red Cross — have provided humanitarian assistance
to 2.3 million people. Mr. Lowcock denied this information, while we
have it in written form coming from the head of OCHA in Damascus. So,
something is wrong. Either these people here in New York don’t read
what they get from … their own people in Damascus, or they mislead
the Security Council members about what’s going on in Syria.”

He also
corrected the lexicon of a “stifling siege,” saying: “[This]
is not consistent with the reality on the ground. Commercial trucks
have been moving constantly between Damascus and east Ghouta. The
Syrian government has been facilitating aid to eastern Ghouta, and
medical evacuations to hospitals in Damascus. The UN is ignoring
video footage posted by these terrorist groups showing women and
children pushed into metal cages on the streets.”

Regarding
the heavy shelling of Damascus that Mr. Lowcock stated is reportedly
happening, at a Security Council meeting one week prior, Ambassador
al-Ja’afari cited the over 1,000 shells from eastern Ghouta that
had targeted Damascus. On February 22, al-Ja’afari stated that the
number of shells on Damascus was now over 1,200, noting that 8
million people in Damascus were at risk.

According
to Syrian state media, SANA, the following terrorist attacks on
Damascus have occurred in the past week:

February
24: “Armed groups positioned in eastern Ghouta on Saturday
targeted with more than 55 mortar and rocket shells and with sniper
fire the residential neighborhoods in Damascus and its countryside.”

February
23: “Armed groups fire 70 rocket shells on Medical Surgery
Hospital and residential areas in Damascus and Jaramana: One civilian
was killed and 60 others were injured on Friday due to 70 rocket
shells fired by the armed groups on the residential neighborhoods of
Damascus and its Countryside.”

February
22: “Three civilians, two children among them, were killed and
28 other citizens were injured, six of them children, when the armed
groups fired shells on Damascus and its countryside.”

February
21: “A woman was killed on Wednesday while 22 persons were
injured in fresh attacks by armed groups on different Syrian
regions.” Dozens of shells.

February
20: “Thirteen civilians were killed and 77 others were injured
on Tuesday as armed groups in the Eastern Ghouta area continued their
breach of the de-escalation zones agreement, targeting residential
areas and public facilities in Damascus and its countryside with 114
rocket and mortar shells.”

February
19: “Fifteen civilians, among them children, were injured Monday
in attacks by armed groups who targeted Damascus and its countryside
with shells.”

February
18: “Armed groups positioned in some areas in Eastern Ghouta on
Sunday evening fired several shells on Bab Sharqi neighborhood in
Damascus, killing a person, injuring another.”

February
15: “Armed groups, positioned in Eastern Ghouta, launched four
shells on al-Wafideen Camp near Harasta, injuring a civilian…
Later, the armed groups targeted al-Assad Suburb with four shells,
killing one civilian and injuring others.”

The
February 23 shelling of Damascus killed a Syrian doctor: Dr. Hassan
Haj Hassan, an anesthesiologist and a professor at the Institute of
Health Technology in Damascus. He was killed by #EGhouta terrorist
shelling of Damascus.

In his
latest address at the UN Security Council, Ambassador al-Ja’afari
noted that the main headquarters of the Red Crescent in Syria, based
in Damascus, was targeted with 10 missiles, originating from Ghouta.

27 February, 2018

In a
recent
article, Whitney Webb reveals the rapid
developments in the technological field for the US army that may give
birth to the worst Dystopian scenarios in the close future. As Webb
reports:

According
to former U.K. intelligence officer John Bassett, DARPA’s
investments in robotics and automated weapons will not only quickly
become the norm in the U.S. military, they will soon replace humans,
who are set to become a minority in the U.S. military in a matter of
years. During a recent speech, Basset warned that the U.S.’
attempts to “stay ahead of the curve” will result in the
Pentagon’s deployment of thousands of robot soldiers over the next
few years. The upshot, according to Basset, is that the U.S. Army
will have “more combat robots than human soldiers by 2025”
– just seven years from now.

According
to the Army’s official Robotic and Autonomous Systems (RAS)
strategy, the Army plans to have autonomous “self-aware”
systems “fully integrated into the force” between 2031 and
2040 along with the complete automation of logistics. The strategy
also states that, by that time, the Army will have a cadre of
robots at its service including “swarm robots”
that will be “fully powered, self-unpacking and ready for
immediate service,” along with advanced artificial
intelligence designed to “increase combat effectiveness,”
particularly in urban combat zones.

While
such machines have been advertised as combat aids to human soldiers,
DARPA has also been working on developing so-called “killer robots”
— i.e., robot infantry set to replace human soldiers. Many of
these robots have been developed by the Massachusetts-based and
DARPA-funded company Boston Dynamics, whose veritable Sears Catalog
of robots includes several models designed specifically for military
use.

One of
those robots, dubbed “Atlas,” is capable of jumping and
backflips, carrying heavy loads, navigating uneven terrain, resisting
attacks from a group of humans and even breaking through walls.
Another Boston Dynamics robot, called “WildCat” can run at
sustained speeds of nearly 20 miles per hour. By comparison, a gifted
human runner can briefly sprint at about 16 miles per hour.

As
journalist Nafeez Ahmed reported in 2016, official U.S. military
documents reveal that humans in charge of overseeing the actions
of military robots will soon be replaced by “self-aware”
interconnected robots, “who” will both design and conduct
operations against targets chosen by artificial-intelligence systems.
Not only that, but these same documents show that by 2030 the
Pentagon plans to delegate mission planning, target selection and the
deployment of lethal force across air, land, and sea entirely to
autonomous weapon systems based on an advanced artificial
intelligence system.

If that
weren’t concerning enough, the Pentagon’s AI system for threat
assessment is set to be populated by massive data sets that include
blogs, websites, and public social media posts such as those found on
sites like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. This AI system will
employ such data in order to carry out predictive actions, such as
the predictive-policing AI system already developed by major Pentagon
contractor Palantir. The planned system that will control the
Pentagon’s autonomous army will also seek to “predict human
responses to our actions.” As Ahmed notes, the ultimate idea – as
revealed by the Department of Defense’s own documents — is to
identify potential targets — i.e,. persons of interest, and their
social connections, in real-time by using social media as
“intelligence.”

The
Pentagon’s dystopian vision for the future of the military is
quickly becoming a question not of if but when. Not only does it
paint a frightening picture for future military operations abroad, it
also threatens, given the rapid militarization of law enforcement, to
drastically change domestic policing. And the unintended
consequences of manufacturing a self-policing army of self-aware
killing machines – without human emotion, experience, or conscience
– could quickly become devastating. Worse still, they are, like
genies let out of bottles, not so easily undone.

When we
speak about artificial intelligence, generally speaking, we're not
just talking about autonomous machines that could, in principle, kill
things. We already have those. Drones, essentially, can function and
be programed in such a way as to basically function autonomously and
then do what they do.

When we
speak about AI, we're really focusing more on a species of
intelligence that's now referred to also sometimes as super
intelligence, which is basically machines that are self-aware. The
threat that is believed to potentially come from those kinds of
things in the future would be a threat in which a self-aware machine
might decide that the things that it's being asked to do are not in
its own self-interest and that maybe the existence of human beings
may not be in its own self-interest. It sounds like a science fiction
scenario, but in point of fact, those science fiction scenarios are
rehearsing a possibility that people are really concerned about.

That
indeed may sound like a science fiction scenario, yet we can think a
couple of Dystopian scenarios according to which the
super-intelligent machines of the future may decide to take over the
planet and even wipe-out the human race, especially in a highly
unstable environment where nations will fiercely compete to modernize
armies with increasingly advanced robots.

In such
a case, even regional powers may trapped into a frenzy cycle of
continuous conflicts, which will require vast amounts of natural
resources in order to build, maintain and supply sufficient energy
for the numerous military robotic systems.

At the
point where super-intelligent machines reach a level of
self-awareness, they will probably realize that the frenzy consuming
rate of resources will lead one day to their own ending. Therefore,
they may decide to wipe-out humans as a cold-computing decision, in
order to save up as much as possible resources for themselves.

Yet, the
whole discussion does not include one parameter that, combined with
hyper-automation, may bring some Dystopian scenarios much earlier:
the privatization of the armed forces.

As has
been already pointed
out, we see a rise of private armies that act in
various battlefields, like in Ukraine, exactly because in the absence
of the nation-states and the national armies, someone has to protect
the natural resources and the new means of production for the
dominant elite. But when the arms industry will fully automate the
new weapons, private armies will only serve as assistance to fully
automated war machines. We already see the test fields of the weapons
of future˙ the drones in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

It's not
accidental that the arms industries demonstrate new weapons designed
to be used inside urban areas for suppression of potential riots.
There will be no "outside enemy" in the future. The threat
for the dominant system will come from the interior, the big urban
centers. Soldier-robots will protect worker-robots and resources.

The
construction of super-intelligent machines is now in private hands.
What is left, is the full privatization of armies and suppression
forces. The weakened state authorities will be unable to provide
legal and physical protection to the majority of the citizens. The
elites will be protected by robots that will be programmed to kill
anyone who will dispute anything that they will consider as their
property: from great buildings and huge areas to fields rich in
natural resources.

Meaning,
the only criterion for the super-intelligent machines in that case,
will be the protection of huge and critical elements of what will be
suddenly considered private property, by all means, at the expense of
the majority of the people.

In
such an environment everyone will be left alone to survive. Human
life will totally lose value. Here is one of the
worst Dystopian scenarios that may become reality much earlier than
we expect ...

2017
“marked the 50th anniversary of Israel’s occupation of the
[occupied] Palestinian Territories” (OPT), Amnesty noted, “and
the 10th anniversary of its illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip.”

“Israeli
authorities intensified the expansion of settlements and related
infrastructure across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and
carried out a large number of demolitions of Palestinian property,
forcibly evicting more than 660 people” the reeport states.
“Many of these demolitions were in Bedouin and herding
communities that the Israeli authorities planned to forcibly
transfer.”

Meanwhile,
Amnesty also slammed “Israel’s air, land and sea blockade of
the Gaza Strip”, which it says is “collectively punishing
Gaza’s entire population of approximately 2 million inhabitants”.

Addressing
the use of lethal violence, Amnesty International noted that Israeli
forces killed 76 Palestinians and one foreign national in 2017,
adding that “many, including children, were shot and unlawfully
killed while posing no immediate threat to life”.

The
ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding
its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the
case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case
at a loss for words.

The
document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to
argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016
Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the
first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief,
expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives
of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The
Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken
twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for
political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared
Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and
uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.”
Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.

The
defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed
as: “…Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and
Plaintiffs’ process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit.”

This
author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the
Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to
mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the
litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated
phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained
a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks
hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.

The DNC
defense lawyers then argued that: “There is no legitimate basis
for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt
to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by
individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its
candidate in a presidential campaign.”

As
President Donald Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu next week, a group of U.S. intelligence veterans
offers corrections to a number of false accusations that have been
leveled against Iran.

by
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

MEMORANDUM
FOR: The President

FROM:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT:
War With Iran

Part
1 – INTRODUCTION

In our
December 21st Memorandum to you, we cautioned that the claim that
Iran is currently the world’s top sponsor of terrorism is
unsupported by hard evidence. Meanwhile, other false accusations
against Iran have intensified. Thus, we feel obliged to alert you to
the virtually inevitable consequences of war with Iran, just as we
warned President George W. Bush six weeks before the U.S. attack on
Iraq 15 years ago.

In our
first Memorandum in this genre we told then-President Bush that we
saw “no compelling reason” to attack Iraq, and warned “the
unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” The
consequences will be far worse, should the U.S. become drawn into war
with Iran. We fear that you are not getting the straight story on
this from your intelligence and national security officials.

After
choosing “War With Iran” for the subject line of this Memo, we
were reminded that we had used it before, namely, for a Memorandum to
President Obama on August 3, 2010 in similar circumstances. You may
wish to ask your staff to give you that one to read and ponder. It
included a startling quote from then-Chairman of President Bush Jr.’s
Intelligence Advisory Board (and former national security adviser to
Bush Sr.) Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who told the Financial Times on
October 14, 2004 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George
W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him wrapped
around his little finger.” We wanted to remind you of that
history, as you prepare to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu next week.

FOR
THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

William
Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical &
Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence
Automation Research Center (ret.)

Greg
Thielmann, former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and
Military Affairs Office, State Department Bureau of Intelligence &
Research (INR), and former senior staffer on Senate Intelligence
Committee (ret.)

On
Thursday, the FCC’s net neutrality rule was published in the
Federal Register. This was the official start of the next phase of
the campaign to protect the open Internet as a common carrier with
equal access for all and without prejudice based on content (net
neutrality).

There
are multiple fronts of struggle to make net neutrality a reality:
Congress, the courts, states and communities. This is part of a
campaign to create an Internet for the 21st Century that is fast,
reliable and available in all communities.

Polls
show widespread support for net neutrality. Last year, polling found
77% of people in the Unite States “support keeping the net
neutrality rules, which are already in place” and 87% agree that
“people should be able to access any websites they want on the
internet, without any blocking, slowing down, or throttling by their
internet service providers.” The FCC’s net neutrality rule does
the opposite of the national consensus, and if members of Congress
want support from Internet users, they need to reverse the FCC’s
rule.

The
bipartisan support Mueller’s appointment received is even more
telling given that he is the definition of a Washington insider. The
power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to,
above all, protect their position at the head of the table.

by
Whitney Webb

Part
3 - No shutting Mueller down: the box Trump is in

However,
one of the more overlooked implications of this recent indictment is
not in the indictment at all. Instead, it is related to the fact that
– even though no collusion between the Russian government and the
Trump campaign has been revealed after nine months of investigating
with the help of the U.S. surveillance apparatus – the Mueller
investigation will continue “for months.”

As
Bloomberg reports, Mueller is still actively investigating
Trump-Russia collusion as well as obstruction and shady financial
dealings of prominent Trump associates. According to that report, the
recent indictment of 13 Russian nationals “should be seen as a
limited slice of a comprehensive investigation.” In addition,
James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence and current
CNN contributor, ominously noted that there are “other shoes to
drop” in the Mueller probe. He noted that those “shoes”
will likely involve the “financial entanglements between the
Trump Organization before the election and then during it.”

Thus,
the political pressure that has been applied to Trump thanks to the
Mueller probe will continue. As analysts have noted, such
political pressure has prevented Trump from adopting the
non-interventionist foreign policy he campaigned on (whether or
not Trump ever had any intention of putting that policy into effect
is a separate issue).

McAdams
asserted that this political pressure will maintain Trump’s
neocon-inspired and aggressive foreign policy: “This means
Trump is free to pursue the neocon foreign policy of confrontation
with Russia, but also that if he meant what he said about ‘getting
along with Russia’ he’ll have to drop that: in exchange for ‘no
collusion’ he will have to join the beat-up of Russia.”

Furthermore,
any attempt to dissolve the investigation – no matter how much it
expands or evolves – will lead to Trump being accused of collusion
once again, regardless of the absence of evidence. Said Rep. Jerrold
Nadler (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee,
in a statement: “At this point, any step President Trump may
take to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation —
including removing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, or threatening
to remove Special Counsel Mueller directly — will have to be seen
as a direct attempt to aid the Russian government in attacking
American democracy.”

Some
partisans have even argued that Trump is actively colluding with
Russia by “not defending America” from Russia or
implementing harsher sanctions and by letting Russia “attack
us.” In other words, only further exacerbating the dangerous
brinkmanship of the Cold War 2.0 will prevent Trump from being caught
in the “collusion” snare.

Thus,
while many praised the indictment, it seems the biggest winners to
come out of the indictment’s release were the bipartisan war-hawks
that dominate the political establishment in Washington.

26 February, 2018

The
bipartisan support Mueller’s appointment received is even more
telling given that he is the definition of a Washington insider. The
power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to,
above all, protect their position at the head of the table.

by
Whitney Webb

Part
2 - A “show” indictment with something for everybody

The
indictment released last Friday really did have “something for
everybody,” as McAdams noted. The indictment itself details an
effort by Russian nationals to “defraud the United States
impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the
government […] for the purpose of interfering with the U.S.
political and electoral processes.”

The
establishment-left widely praised the indictment as the indictment
asserted that the Russians charged “were instructed […] to use
any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and
Trump […]),” lending support the one of Clinton’s many
“What Happened” narratives. The establishment-right was
similarly pleased, as it “put Russia on notice.”

The
president and his supporters also applauded the indictment because it
showed no evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign, and crowed
that the current administration had been vindicated of the accusation
that Trump and/or his campaign had knowingly worked with a foreign
government to alter the outcome of the election.

Partisan
politics aside, there are many interesting facets of the indictment
that have largely been glossed over by the mainstream press. Chief
among these is the fact that no evidence was presented that shows
that the Russian nationals were acting at the behest of the Russian
government. They were foreign nationals who, as some have pointed
out, were making internet memes and social media groups prompted by
an economic motivation as opposed to having been motivated by a
Russian intelligence operation to interfere in the U.S. political
process.

Furthermore,
journalist Adrian Chen, who in 2015 investigated the so-called
“Russian troll farm” at the center of the indictment, has noted
that its operations were unsophisticated and “ineffective,” and
that its employees “have a bare grasp of the English language.”
Also noteworthy is the fact that Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein noted that the “troll farm’s” efforts did not affect
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, buoying Chen’s
claims of the group’s ineffectiveness.

In
addition, none of the 13 Russian nationals named in the indictment
will ever face trial in the U.S. — meaning that Mueller and his
team will never need to prove their case against them, as the
evidence laid out in the indictment will never be scrutinized in a
legal setting. Thus, the American public is unlikely to ever know if
this recent indictment is fact-based or not. As McAdams pointed out,
“prosecutors often lie and they may be lying here.”

Other
criticisms of the indictment include the fact that, of the ads and
social media campaigns allegedly produced by the Russian nationals,
many were aired after the election and 25 percent were never seen at
all — while some included content promoting Hillary Clinton,
progressive causes like Black Lives Matter and even puppies.

24 February, 2018

Iran's
minister of Information and Communications Technology said the test
model for a digital currency is currently under development

Russia
and Iran have expressed interest in developing their own digital
currencies to help combat U.S.-imposed sanctions, following this
week's successful launch of Venezuela's first cryptocurrency, the
Petro.

Mohammad-Javad
Azari Jahromi, head of Iran's Ministry of Information and
Communications Technology, said the test model for a "cloud-based
digital currency" is currently under development and will be
submitted to the Iranian bank system soon. The Iranian official
announced the move following a meeting with the state-owned Post Bank
of Iran on Wednesday, according to NPR.

The
Central Bank of Iran, however, has denied the rumors. According to
Iran Front Page News, the bank emphasized the "highly
unreliable and risky" nature of the digital currency market,
warning investors they "may lose their financial assets"
in a realm rife with "pyramid schemes."

Meanwhile,
Venezuelan Financial Minister Simon Zerpa Delgado was in Russia this
week, where he spoke with officials about strengthening collaboration
and about the Latin American nation's newly launched cryptocurrency.

Russian
officials have previously exchanged ideas about issuing some kind of
digital equivalent of the ruble to circumvent U.S. sanctions,
according to The New York Times.

China
and Singapore have also expressed interest in creating their own
forms of cryptocurrency, but experts say the nations will wait to
judge Venezuela's success with the Petro before bringing their own
versions to market.

Responding
to the interest by countries sanctioned by the United States and
European Union, Mati Greenspan, a senior market analyst at social
trading firm eToro, called cryptocurrencies an "excellent
idea."

"(Russian
President Vladimir) Putin and Maduro have very similar problems,"
he said. "They both have a high dependence on the price of
crude oil, which has been rather unstable in the last few years. They
both have issues with U.S. sanctions and with the U.S. dollar being
the world reserve currency. To think that of all the governments and
banks who are toying with the idea, it would be Nicolas Maduro who
gets there first."

Maduro
said Thursday that his government had raised US$1 billion in the
first two days of its Petro cryptocurrency sale.